Greek Orthodox Church and Pan-Orthodox Cathedral. "Bartholomew" Cathedral ended as a "regularly functioning institution - Is the place of the Council determined

Today, not only many Orthodox believers, but the entire world community, as never before, is interested in the question: “The Pan-Orthodox Council: what is it? How is it different from the Universal? Let's try to answer. So, the Pan-Orthodox Council is when the primates and representatives of all the generally recognized local Orthodox gather 14. They include: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Cypriot, Helladic, Polish, Albanian, Czech lands and Slovakia.

Preparing for the Council

On May 6-9, 2014, a meeting of heads and representatives of churches was held in Istanbul at the St. George's Cathedral, where Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople presided. He called for a pan-Orthodox council to be held if nothing unforeseen happened. The place and time of its holding was determined - June 17 in the church of St. Irene in Istanbul. But due to the sharp aggravation of relations between Russia and Turkey in January 2016, at the insistence of the Patriarch of Moscow Kirill, the time and place were reassigned - June 20, the Greek island of Crete. This is the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

History of cathedrals

It recognizes seven Ecumenical Councils in total. The most recent of these took place in the 13th century. It was II (787). It condemned iconoclasm. For reference: the first council, or rather, the I Council of Nicaea (I Ecumenical) took place in 325. Here a common opinion was developed on the creed, which became the basis of all orthodox Christianity. In addition, those present determined the time of Easter and condemned the Arian heresy.

Pan-Orthodox Cathedral: what is it? How to understand it?

So, after the last, the seventh one that passed more than one thousand years ago, no one was going to. However, now even the very name "Ecumenical" has become somewhat incorrect. Because, firstly, the Great Western Schism of 1054 took place in the Christian world, as a result of which the Roman Catholic Church was formed. And in order to hold an Ecumenical Council again, all Christians need to unite. But it's still very complex issue. Secondly, not all canonical churches will want to be there. Yes, and all the basic and necessary rules and canons for ministry have long been established at the cathedrals. No one will go to discuss and change Tradition.

Predictions about the Eighth Ecumenical Council

This is where some confusion began as to what exactly will be held: an Ecumenical or a Pan-Orthodox Council? What is, why such nervousness and hysteria arose with this question? The thing is that the holy elders predicted that at the Eighth Ecumenical Council the Antichrist would be secretly crowned, all faiths would unite into one, the heresy of ecumenism would be accepted, monasticism would be destroyed, and a new calendar introduced. In addition, abolish Divine Liturgy, Orthodox patriarchs will begin to commemorate the Pope at services, bishops will be allowed to marry, the singing of psalms will fall silent, fasts will be simplified, there will be no Sacrament of Communion, etc. There will no longer be God's grace in the churches. Therefore, they will not be able to walk.

But, returning to the topic “Pan-Orthodox Council, what is it?”, It should be noted: judging by breaking news, four local Bulgarian, Georgian and Russian refused to participate in the Council. The Serbs were also supposed to join this circle, but then they reconsidered their decision. The reason for the refusal was not fully understood some of the issues that will be discussed. Therefore, they wanted to postpone the Council until better times.

Ukrainian question about the unification of schismatics

In anticipation of everything Orthodox Cathedral, or rather, on the eve of it, on June 16, 2016, the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada petitioned Bartholomew I for help in uniting Ukrainian Orthodox churches. She asked to be granted autocephaly. Thus, according to them, the historical injustice will be corrected, when in 1868 the Kyiv Metropolitanate passed from Constantinople to the subordination of Moscow. Which, according to the Rada, led to the religious annexation of Ukraine.

Patriarch of All Russia

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, the legitimate spiritual leader of all Eastern Slavs, warned that the separation of the Ukrainian church from them would have a devastating effect on relations between the Constantinople and Moscow dioceses. In turn, Patriarch Bartholomew I assured that this issue would not be raised. By the way, 24 bishops from local churches will have to participate in the Pan-Orthodox Council. And all decisions will be made upon reaching a consensus.

The actions of Patriarch Kirill (Gundyaev) on the eve of the council were sustained in a “hybrid” style: blackmail, the threat of a full-scale split, ignorance by opponents, and tense expectation. How long it will last and who will be the first in world Orthodoxy to lose their nerves is the main intrigue of the new post-conciliar reality. And the main source of tension is Ukraine.

"Ukrainian question" postponed again

On the eve of the official opening of the cathedral, on June 16, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine appealed to the chairman of the cathedral, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, with a request to consider the issue of complete independence (autocephaly) of the Ukrainian Church. This story has long history(to which the deputies appeal). From the time of the Baptism of Russia and until the very end of the 17th century, the Kievan Metropolis was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

As a result of the Moscow-Polish war and the aggravation of relations between Russia and Turkey, the Patriarch of Constantinople entrusted the management of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1686, but, as it turned out in 1924, after the fall of the Russian Empire, this decision was temporary and conditional. In 1924, Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Poland, substantiating this decision by the fact that the Kyiv Metropolis was and remains an integral part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the dioceses on the territory of interwar Poland were historically part of the Kyiv Metropolis.

In Kyiv itself, on January 1, 1919, the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church was proclaimed, which finally took shape at the All-Ukrainian Council of 1921. True, this cathedral was unable to form a legal hierarchy, but this problem was solved during the Second World War, when the above-mentioned Orthodox Church in Poland came to the territory of Ukraine along with the Wehrmacht. This church was Ukrainian in terms of the ethnic composition of the clergy and parishioners, and at the first opportunity extended its jurisdiction to the entire territory of Ukraine.

The Soviet government banned Ukrainian autocephaly, which survived only in exile. In 1989, she returned to Ukraine; The first Patriarch of Kyiv was the legendary Mstislav (Skrypnik), adjutant of Simon Petlyura, who was ordained bishop in occupied Kyiv in 1942. After his death in 1993, the church split into two branches, each of which is fighting for its canonical recognition by Constantinople.

Despite all this, the largest Orthodox jurisdiction in Ukraine remains the Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), within which the confrontation between pro-Moscow and autocephalous groups is growing. The latter is personified by Metropolitan Alexander (Drabinko), the closest associate of the late primate of the church, Metropolitan Vladimir (Sabodan). And the new primate elected in 2014, Metropolitan Onufry (Berezovsky), is guided by Moscow and does not accept the idea of ​​autocephaly. However, in the conditions of the current war, this idea is gaining more and more supporters: the appeal of the Verkhovna Rada was supported by influential priests and laity of the UOC-MP, who no longer want to be associated with Moscow.

Officially, the Pan-Orthodox Council did not consider the "Ukrainian issue" - it was not on the agenda approved by the primates of 14 churches in January. But on the sidelines of the cathedral, this question was central.

Significantly was the appointment of the official speaker of the cathedral, which every evening from June 20 to 25 held briefings for journalists, the Ukrainian Archbishop Job (Getcha). Once, in response to a request from Russian journalists to condemn “the gross interference of the Verkhovna Rada in church affairs,” Job noted that all modern autocephalies were presented “in connection with the political situation” and taking into account the appeals of the state authorities of the respective countries. In response to the requests of the authorities, Constantinople gave autocephaly to the Polish and Albanian churches, recognized the autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church.

The danger of losing the Ukrainian Church in Moscow is very well understood. They say that during the days of the cathedral in the Russian capital, a meeting was held at high level, as a result of which the Moscow lobby in Kyiv was instructed to intensify the fight against autocephaly. As a result, on June 23, an “alternative” appeal appeared by 39 deputies of the Verkhovna Rada from the Opposition Bloc, which is sympathetic to Russia, headed by Vadim Novinsky, an oligarch who moved several years ago from Moscow to Kyiv. The authors of the appeal urged Patriarch Bartholomew not to react to "initiatives of political adventurers to change the existing canonical system in Ukraine."

Literally on the eve of the council, the Patriarch of Constantinople sent Ukraine an encouraging sign. As the head of the Department for Religious Affairs of Ukraine, Andriy Yurash, told the author of these lines, Bartholomew invited the Primate of the UOC-MP, Metropolitan Onuphry, to travel with him to Cappadocia. Another invited guest was the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the Church of England. In the language of Constantinopolitan diplomacy, this means that the Patriarch wants to see the Church of Ukraine in the same status as the Church of England.

One of the documents adopted by the Council is called "Church autonomy and the way it is granted." The status of autonomy is lower than autocephaly, but is perceived as an important step towards full independence. The draft of this document was also signed by the Moscow Patriarchate in the process of preparing for the council, despite the fact that there is a clear allusion to Ukraine. The document mentions certain territories that are considered theirs by two local churches. And if one or both "mother" churches want to give autonomy to the churches in these territories, then the last word the decision of this question remains with Constantinople. Ukraine, as can be seen from the Tomos of 1924, Constantinople considers its own. As well as Moscow.

The "Ukrainian question" should be decided soon after the council. The Patriarchate of Constantinople feels that it may lose time: the political situation in Ukraine can hardly be called stable so far, and the “window of opportunity” may close soon. In addition, the part of the Ukrainian Church striving for independence will simply get tired of waiting and proclaim autocephaly on its own, without any participation of Constantinople.

Didn't calculate the strength?

What was Patriarch Kirill counting on when on June 13 he announced his final decision not to go to the Pan-Orthodox Council? To the same cathedral, the preparation of which exactly 55 years ago began spiritual father- Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov). To the cathedral, in which Cyril himself invested a lot of effort, sitting at all kinds of synaxes and meetings, seeking more and more concessions from Constantinople. There is no unequivocal answer to this question, because Kirill's losses from the decision made clearly exceed his gains.

The latter can only be attributed to the pacification of the intra-church right-wing conservative opposition, which habitually criticizes Cyril for the "heresy of ecumenism", and became especially active after the meeting with Pope Francis in February of this year.

This opposition, uniting several bishops, a group of active priests and a significant number of monks and laity, proclaimed the Council in Crete "wolf", "robber" and even "antichrist". Such harsh definitions are connected with the prophecies existing in the Orthodox environment - both medieval and modern - that the Church is established on the seven pillars of the seven Ecumenical Councils, which approved the entirety of the truth, therefore the eighth council is not needed, it will be false and mark the beginning of the last times, the Apocalypse. A number of monasteries and parishes warned Kirill: we are waiting for the cathedral, and then we are leaving the Moscow Patriarchate. Fortunately, there are many "alternative", truly Orthodox jurisdictions in Russia.

It seems to sound menacing, but this movement did not pose a real danger to Cyril. Firstly, with all the efforts, it occupied a rather marginal position in the ROC MP. Secondly, the charter of the Moscow Patriarchate is drawn up in such a way that in the event of a monastery or parish leaving its jurisdiction, the buildings of churches and all property remain in the patriarchate, they are in no way assigned to a particular community. And for the church leadership, it is only important who owns the temple, and not who is going to pray somewhere in the apartments. However, it must be admitted that Kirill's refusal to go to the Sobor brought confusion to the ranks of the right-wing opposition, part of which is already ready to return under the patriarchal omophorion and believe that the "heresy of ecumenism" in the ROC MP is over.

The "imitative version" seems more likely. Patriarch Kirill, having been brought up in the conditions of the Soviet command system, with its total and rigid control over the church, captured the features of Putin's "vertical" system. Seeing that the national leader is stepping up anti-Western rhetoric, breaking with the G8, violating the principles of international law, introducing “counter-sanctions”, preparing for war, etc., Kirill tries to project all this onto church policy and also “goes for exacerbation."

If his ideal is a "symphony" of secular and ecclesiastical power, then the latter must repeat all the moves of the former, play in unison with it. And among other things, the Patriarch of Constantinople - a “Turkish subject” receives financial support from the United States, the churches of the Greek-Roman world serve in NATO member countries, condemn the “peace-loving foreign policy» Kremlin. Isn't all this enough to repeat the "geopolitical feat" of Vladimir Putin on your small plot?

I can assume that the patriarch shared the plan of torpedoing the Cathedral with Putin on Athos on May 28 and, apparently, received approval. Obviously, the Moscow Patriarch hoped that Constantinople would tremble before the union of the ROC MP, Mount Athos and the masses of Slavic churches that were supposed to support Moscow. The critical mass, however, did not work out - the Serbian, Polish and Czechoslovak churches went to Crete. And Constantinople did not flinch, deciding to hold the Council without "Protestants". It remains to be assumed that Patriarch Kirill did not calculate his strength.

Now he has taken a wait-and-see position: the information “mochilovo” of Constantinople, which began in the state and church media on June 13-14, has been suspended after the decision of the synod not to go to Crete. If anyone allows themselves to be harsh, then only marginal sites and bloggers who are ready to love the patriarch to death. The official position, formulated by the head of the ROC MP department for interaction with society and the media, is that the cathedral in Crete, in general, must be respected, it is not only necessary to call it Pan-Orthodox. It is recognized by the Moscow Patriarchate as a council of 10 local churches - a very authoritative event in the Orthodox world.

Reform did not happen

But the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other participating churches see the Council differently. After all, it was convened not by a voluntaristic decision of the "opponents of Moscow", but by all 14 primates of the churches of world Orthodoxy, including Patriarch Kirill. The mechanism for canceling this decision by the participants in the synaxis was not provided. So, despite all the belated ultimatums, it is impossible to cancel the Council. Moreover, Constantinople insists on the binding nature of its decisions for all churches, including the ROC MP. He believes that the current Council has finally given Orthodox world a mechanism for resolving issues without Moscow, which was always dissatisfied with something, protested and slowed down the conciliar process. Now, they believe in Constantinople, the Orthodox world will breathe more freely.

According to the rules of the council, all its decisions are taken by consensus, that is, unanimously. This provision is interpreted in different ways: the participants in the council, naturally, believe that we are talking about the consensus of all those present at the council. And the Moscow Patriarchate, which itself did not go to the Cathedral voluntarily, also insists on the consensus of those absent. In general, the principle of consensus was developed to please the ROC MP: the traditional canon law of the Orthodox Church recognizes the adoption of a decision by a simple majority of the participants in the council. This is exactly how the holy fathers of the Ecumenical Councils voted - and at every ancient Council there was a mass of people dissatisfied with the opinion of the majority. If consensus had been demanded of the Ecumenical Councils, the dogmas and canons of Orthodoxy would not have been accepted. This was recalled at the opening of the Council by the head of the Albanian Church, Archbishop Anastassy. But the consensus principle was not changed.

The cathedral adopted a total of six documents in six days of work: on the mission of the church in modern world, about relations with the rest of the Christian world, about marriage, about fasting, about the Orthodox diaspora and church autonomy. All documents are extremely streamlined, it is useless to look for a sensation in them. Preparations for the cathedral in the 1960s began with a program of radical reforms (the transition of all churches to a new calendar style, the reduction of services and posts, the permission of married episcopate and second marriage of the clergy, etc.), but this program gradually lost all its radicalism - "if only there was no schism." As a result, the council adopted a cautiously ecumenical confession of faith, recognizing the Churchness of Catholics and some Protestants, allowed (with reservations) the marriages of the Orthodox with the same Catholics and Protestants, and allowed the fasts to be relaxed at the discretion of the confessor on an individual basis. You can't call all this a "reform of Orthodoxy". Moreover, the Georgian Church, which does not participate in the council, warned that it would not accept a marriage document, as it blesses its children to marry only and exclusively Orthodox.

***

In general, the Council in Crete passed quite peacefully, there was no new global split in Orthodoxy. This outcome is due to the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate nevertheless “put on the brakes”, abandoning the original plan of intensifying confrontation. I really don't want to lose Ukraine... But the position of the Moscow Patriarchate in world Orthodoxy, which has learned to make church-wide decisions without Moscow, has weakened. If we draw analogies with secular politics, Moscow was expelled from the church G8. Or even from the UN. Who is better off for this? Definitely not the Moscow Patriarchate. But you have to be patriots and suffer along with your country, right?

In the summer of 2016, in Greece, in the coastal village of Kolymbari (Crete), a Pan-Orthodox Council was held, where 10 of the 14 recognized local autocephalous took part. According to the decision taken by the heads of the meeting in March 2014, where Bartholomew presided, this council was planned to be held in Istanbul (Constantinople), but due to the sharp aggravation of Russian-Turkish relations in 2016, at the insistence of the Moscow Patriarchate, the date was postponed from 16 to June 27, 2016.

Eighth Pan-Orthodox Council: how to interpret?

There are seven Ecumenical Councils in the history of the Christian Church, the last of which took place in the 8th century and was called the Second Nicene. It condemned iconoclasm. The very first Council was held in 325, where the basis of all orthodox Christianity was worked out - the Creed.

However, many believers decided that the 8th Pan-Orthodox Council would be held. But this is wrong, because the “eighth” can only be Ecumenical, and it is impossible to hold it, since in 1054 the Great Schism took place, which eventually formed the Roman Catholic Church. Accordingly, now the name "universal" has become a little inappropriate.

8 Ecumenical Council: fears of believers

Fear among Orthodox Christians appeared for a reason: according to the predictions of the holy elders, the Antichrist will be secretly crowned at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, the heresy of ecumenism will be accepted (faiths will unite into one), monasticism will be destroyed, a new calendar will be introduced, Orthodox patriarchs will commemorate the Pope in prayers , the fasts will be simplified, the psalms will be silent, the Sacrament of the Eucharist will disappear, bishops will be allowed to marry, etc. There will no longer be God's grace in such churches, as well as the point of visiting them.

In order to hold an Ecumenical Council, all Christians need to unite, but this issue is now very difficult to resolve, and not all canonical churches will want to attend it. That is why the Pan-Orthodox Council was convened - a meeting of primates and representatives of all generally recognized Orthodox. This includes churches such as Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Hellas (Greek), Cypriot, Russian, Serbian, Albanian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Polish, Romanian, Czech lands and Slovakia.

Agenda of the Pan-Orthodox Council

Six contentious issues were adopted on the agenda of the Council for consideration:

1. Orthodox Church and its mission in the modern world.
2. Orthodox diaspora.
3. Autonomy and how it is achieved.
4. The sacrament of marriage and what threatens it.
5. Fasting and the importance of observing it today.
6. The Orthodox Church and its relationship with the rest of the Christian world.

Ukrainian question

Fuel was added to the fire by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, which, on the eve of the expected meeting of the heads of the Orthodox Churches on June 16, 2016, issued an appeal to the Ecumenical Council on the recognition of the act of 1686, when the Kyiv Metropolis was transferred from the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Moscow, invalid. And they demanded that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church be granted autocephaly so that it can take its rightful place in the Orthodox family of local churches.

The Moscow Patriarchate criticized the deputies' appeal, stating that they are minding their own business and behaving like a self-proclaimed body in managing relations between churches. Officially, this issue was not considered in Crete.

Meeting format

The Pan-Orthodox Council officially opened on June 20, and 24 bishops gathered there. Any decision was made only after reaching a consensus. He chaired it. The official languages ​​of the meeting were: Greek, Russian, English, French and Arabic.

Metropolitan Savvaty (Antonov) noted that the Pan-Orthodox Council had serious shortcomings and was surprised at the uncertainty regarding the jurisdiction of Qatar, the lack of agreement on the documents proposed for approval. But the most surprising thing is the required quarter of a million euros from each delegation participating in the Council. Due to unresolved disagreements, as a result, four generally recognized autocephalous Russian, Bulgarian and Georgian ones refused to participate.

The upcoming event is closely watched by the "Orthodox oligarch", whose name is associated with the activation of the "white movement" in Crimea and not only, and at the same time he is well versed in the American political agenda, general producer of the TV channel "Tsargrad" Konstantin Malofeev. According to him, "a huge landing force of American intelligence services from the FBI to the CIA" has already landed in Crete. Allegedly, they will help ensure the safety of the cathedral. But the real danger is not terrorism. For Russia, this is subordination to the global elites and the unified world religion being developed for this.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople from the mid-1960s became right hand Vatican, and it is the Vatican that is primarily interested in bringing all Orthodoxy to a "common denominator." So, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity Cardinal Kurt Koch does not hide the fact that the Vatican has been waiting for this council for a long time. "A serious barrier to ecumenical dialogue is the fact that the Orthodox themselves do not agree with each other on many issues, and this, in turn, makes it difficult to dialogue with catholic church. Therefore, I hope that this situation will be resolved through a pan-Orthodox council, which will help establish greater unity among the Orthodox churches," Koch said.

He quite openly admits that "since 2005 we have been trying to delve into the problem of primacy in dialogue with representatives of 15 Orthodox churches", and regards it as big success adopted in 2007, the so-called "Ravenna Document", when the Orthodox Churches and the papacy have recognized that the Church needs a "primary". It should be noted that the ROC boycotted that meeting in Ravenna, which, of course, did not satisfy the Vatican, because it is precisely for the sake of its subordination that the global ecumenical game is being waged. "Then we decided to work on the topic of the relationship between Orthodox catholicity and Catholic primacy. We must ask each other: is primacy possible in reality without any jurisdiction?" Koch says.

The last two phrases contain the whole essence of the policy of the "holy throne" - without formal subordination to itself, to gather everyone into a single global religious structure, which the Vatican will actually steer. Isn't he looking forward to this council so much in order to "establish a greater unity among the Orthodox churches"? "I would be very happy if this event took place",- concludes Cardinal Koch.

Since Russia is striving to take its rightful place in the emerging global architecture, it is possible that it was decided to join this game,. However, in doing so, we may be in danger of being drawn into the structure of global power being built not on our terms.

Everything points to the fact that the council is being organized for the purpose of adopting a single document - "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world." In any case, it is he who causes the sharpest rejection both among ordinary hierarchs and laity. One gets the feeling that the rest of the documents are intended to serve only as an "Orthodox background", smoothing over the impression of the coup, which can legitimize the document on relations with some "rest of the Christian world." We are talking about nothing less than the ecumenical revolution, which was carried out at the beginning at the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and recognized that all religions carry grains of truth. Therefore, we must strive to unite everyone under one roof, and the Vatican "opens itself to the world" to lead this process. Similar plans are hatched with respect to Orthodoxy under the guise of "restoring the lost unity of Christians."

These concerns come from both the text of the document itself and the voting procedure. The document mentions four times (!) the ecumenical movement, in which the Orthodox Church allegedly always took part (paragraph 4) and had a positive attitude towards it (paragraph 6). According to Archbishop Mark of Berlin, Germany and Great Britain, the text "constantly speaks of a mysterious Christian unity" but "nowhere does it say what it is," which arouses suspicion. Archbishop Mark warns that the ecumenical movement is underestimated in Russia, because its ominous fruits of tolerance have not yet been confronted as sharply as in the West.

Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus believes that it is all about betrayal of Orthodoxy. "A thorough study of this document," he emphasizes, "leads to the following serious conclusion: its compilers pursue the goal of legitimizing and approving heresy with the help of a pan-Orthodox conciliar decision, giving it an official status and establishing the heresy of syncretic inter-Christian and inter-religious ecumenism as the official line of the Orthodox Church" . The very name of the document puts the Orthodox Church part of some "Christian world", making it one of the many so-called "churches". warns of this and Metropolitan Athanasius of Limassol, as well as many other hierarchs, not to mention the laity. If, however, we reduce all claims to the document, publicly voiced only by the clergy, then they clearly will not fit in one volume.

There is also concern about the decision-making process. Perhaps it was specially conceived in such a way that it would be extremely difficult to make corrections to the text of documents? By apt expression Deacon Vladimir Vasilik, the council has "already passed", since it will be possible to vote only amendments rather than documents in general; and if the amendments are not accepted, the document will be considered adopted automatically. And, for example, Constantinople patriarch-ecumenist and ally of the Roman Pope Bartholomew(it is he who will preside over the council) is unlikely to change the ecumenical meaning of the document on relations with "the rest of the Christian world." So, on August 29, 2015, he stated that this council cannot be considered ecumenical, not because they ended in the 8th century, but because there are no “Christians of the West” on it. Thus, he showed in which direction Constantinople was looking and what future he saw for Orthodoxy.

Therefore, Russia and the ROC are left with two real ways to express their disagreement with the ecumenical doctrine that can be promoted at the council. The first is the non-signing of the final documents and declaring them heretical. But he's incredible. The second would be the most beneficial - it's just the non-participation of the ROC in the cathedral, which automatically means its failure. We have already received support from the Pope on the issue of Ukrainian schismatics and Uniates. But with the pleasure that this cathedral will give him, now you can wait. Let's suggest something else.

On June 3, it became known that this could happen. Patriarch Kirill sent a letter to Patriarch Bartholomew, in which he expressed his disagreement with the seating scheme for the patriarchs and other participants in the cathedral, proposed by the organizers. "The primates do not sit in a semicircle, but opposite each other in two parallel lines, with a view of the chairman. In addition, in the above diagram, the primates of the Churches do not sit at the same table, but each is separated from his other brothers, so that they cannot communicate with each other friend",- Patriarch Kirill says in a letter, who believes that this "destroys the overall picture of the Cathedral."

The claims of Patriarch Kirill are superimposed on the boycott of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (BOC), which also criticized the cathedral and at first threatened, and a few days later turned out to participate in it, which in fact deprived the cathedral of its pan-Orthodox status. The main complaints: the incomprehensible purpose of the cathedral, numerous disagreements on the texts of documents, the inability to edit texts during the work of the cathedral (only amendments), disagreement with the seating scheme for primates, inappropriate location of observers and guests. The last two claims are not as insignificant as it might seem from the outside. The location of the hierarchs during meetings is very important and is a subject Orthodox canons. The symbolic meaning of the scheme proposed by Bartholomew is to emphasize the ecumenical status of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which he has historically, but in fact has not had for a long time. In addition, Bartholomew's claims to the primacy of power in the Orthodox world are widely known, which does not fit in with his significance for Orthodoxy, the real world capital of which Moscow has been for five centuries.

Interestingly, the news about the letter of Patriarch Kirill got into the Russian-language media thanks to the Bulgarian translation of the publication in the Greek newspaper. Obviously, the patriarch did not want to give this publicity. However, on June 3, an urgent meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church was held, which stated that "when two weeks remain before the scheduled opening date of the Council, there are serious problems that require urgent pan-Orthodox action." This concerns the BOC's refusal that has already taken place, the possible refusal of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and "the non-participation of at least one Church in the Council constitutes an INSUMERABLE obstacle" to its holding. Therefore, the ROC calls for an emergency Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference to be convened before June 10 to consider the current situation and study the amendments to the conciliar documents submitted by all Churches in order to develop agreed proposals. There is very little time left, and the chances of holding a council have diminished.

Thus, a strong move followed from the side of the ROC. Right on the eve of the council, a step was taken showing that the ROC is not satisfied with the documents that can be adopted at the council, and the role that we are assigned there. That is, now, in order to hold a council, which the Patriarch of Constantinople so wants, he must accept our conditions. Since the majority of the Orthodox people are at a loss as to the goals of the council, this step of the ROC seems correct and timely. As noted in the decision of the Synod of the BOC, "Let the members of the BOC show high ecclesiastical consciousness ... and not succumb to unnecessary and unworthy manipulations."

And there is something to worry about. So, above the main entrance to the Orthodox Academy of Crete, where the Council will be held and which is under the auspices of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a stained-glass window of occult-ecumenical content was placed: it depicts three human figures in the center in the middle of ... fire, which is simply blasphemy for an Orthodox cathedral. These three people in a prayer position raise their hands to religious symbols - the cross, the crescent and ... the star of David. Apparently, Bartholomew really wants to please the Jesuit Francis, who is especially concerned about uniting with the Jews. At the same time, in the main hall of the academy, where the meetings of the cathedral will be held, there is not a single icon of Jesus Christ. They are replaced by images of the hero pagan mythology Prometheus!

Of particular concern is the presence of non-Orthodox "observers" at the cathedral. Metropolitan Seraphim in his Address to the Synod of the Greek Church, he stated that over the two thousand-year history of the Church on local and Ecumenical Councils there never were. "Heretics were invited to Ecumenical Councils not as "observers", but as defendants, in order for them to repent. If they continued to persist in their errors, they were excommunicated from the Church and expelled from the meetings of the Council." According to Vladyka, the presence of the heterodox at a pan-Orthodox council "legitimizes delusion and heresy and actually undermines the authority of the council."

The decision, according to which each local Church would be represented by only 24 bishops, he called "an unprecedented innovation," for the largest possible number of bishops always took part in Ecumenical Councils. He also draws attention to the fact that paragraph 22 of the ecumenical document imposes in advance the provision of infallibility decisions taken. "Keeping true Orthodox faith possible only thanks to the conciliar system, which since ancient times has been the competent and highest criterion of the Church in matters of faith.- said in the project. This suggests that the Cretan Cathedral. That is why this instrument is removed in advance from possible criticism and declared "the highest criterion of the Church in matters of faith." However, no council in itself is obviously not the "highest criterion." It is only the firm dogmatic self-consciousness of the members of the Church. It was this fact that made it possible in the past to reject ecumenical decisions, for example, the Union of Florence with Latinism in 1439, after which Russia began to strengthen and expand at an unprecedented pace.

As for the goals of ecumenism, the Ecumenical Charter adopted by the European "churches" in 2001 speaks openly about them. Among others, these are:

- "to overcome the feeling of self-sufficiency in every church" (which is tantamount to an inferiority complex and inferiority outside the global religious structure),
- "protect the rights of minorities" (it's easy to guess which ones),
- "participate in the construction of Europe",
- "strive for dialogue with our Jewish sisters and brothers at all levels and deepen it",
- "oppose all forms of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism" ( ).

The last two tasks are by no means accidental, since ecumenists do not hide: "We are bound by a one-of-a-kind bond with the people of Israel, with whom God has made an everlasting covenant." Thus, the listed tasks have nothing to do with Christianity at all, but eternal the covenant with Israel simply means the rejection of Christ, since He, according to Christian teaching, just fulfilled Old Testament by giving New. Therefore, the recognition of the eternal covenant of God with the Jews means the recognition of Christ as a liar. Thus, the ecumenical movement has an overtly Zionist character.

Under these conditions, a truly Pan-Orthodox Council can be held only in Russia and on the terms of the Russian Orthodox Church, and it is probably better to refuse to hold the Cretan Council. As stated in the winter Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine Onufry, "participation in it may be a greater evil than refusal to participate." In any case, until the Vatican and Constantinople need him more, and not us.

The Pan-Orthodox Council is over, the results are sad...

In contact with

Classmates

Mikhail Bokov

Pan-Orthodox Cathedral. Photo: COSTAS METAXAKIS / AFP

The so-called Pan-Orthodox Council ended in Crete, in which 10 out of 14 local churches took part under the patronage of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. The council considered six documents. In the most controversial of them - on the attitude of the Orthodox Church to the non-Orthodox - minimal amendments were made that did not change his heretical concept. The Council insists on the binding nature of the adopted decisions for all churches, including those that are absent. The two concluding messages of the Council confirm everything that its opponents feared. A course towards ecumenism and rapprochement with the heterodox is proclaimed, and in addition, there is talk of creating a permanent supra-church body, the decisions of which will be higher than the synodal decisions of each individual Church.

The two conciliar messages drawn up on the basis of the results of the Crete meeting, at first glance, speak of a very good things. They talk about the unity of the Orthodox Church as a priority, about the need to carry "the testimony of faith to those near and far." They condemn the process of secularization, calling it the goal of alienating a person from Christ, and with it they condemn the modern attitude towards marriage, insisting that marriage is an indestructible union of “a man and a woman in love”, and not an interweaving of self-defining genders, as is now largely parts of the world are thought to be.

But under the veil of "correct" words hides a double bottom. This is precisely what the opponents of the Council feared, from the monks of Athos, who called its documents “sly” and “heretical”, to the bishops of a number of local churches and laity. The latter went so far as to call Bartholomew a "traitor of the faith" on one of the cathedral days. The final message proclaims an ecumenical course towards rapprochement with Catholics and Protestants. At the same time, the very word "ecumenism" is slyly missing from the text, it was replaced by a more neutral wording "interreligious dialogue". But in the paragraph concerning this “dialogue”, the first line says openly: “Our Church ... gives great importance dialogue, mainly with non-Orthodox Christians”. And disagreement with the "dialogue" is fundamentalism, or "an expression of morbid religiosity."

The message reads: The Pan-Orthodox Council should become a permanent body and meet every few years. Moreover, Constantinople continues to assert that the decisions of such a body will be higher than the local decisions of the local churches and will be binding on everyone. It was the appearance of such a supra-church structure that the zealots feared, believing that this body would be a sign of the upcoming globalization of the Orthodox Church, a harbinger of its “surrender” to the Vatican.

Minor amendments, whose purpose is to divert the attention of the zealots, but not to correct the essence, were also made to the most controversial document - "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world." In the 6th paragraph of the document, in its original form, it was said about the recognition of the historical existence of other Christian Churches and confessions. This item caused a flurry of criticism from the hierarchs - they spoke against in the Greek, Bulgarian, Cypriot, Russian churches. The Georgian Church rejected the document by the decision of its Synod, but. Raising the status of heretical communities by calling them Churches means in fact recognizing them as the Church and misleading Orthodox minds, the Athos Fathers concluded.

As a result, the paragraph has been changed. Now, in its final form, the Orthodox Church recognizes not the “historical existence of other Christian Churches”, but the “historical name ... of heterodox Christian churches and confessions. That is, since they themselves called themselves Churches, then we accept their self-name, although we ourselves may not agree with it - such is the logic of the document.

On the other hand, they decided not to change the wording about “the search for the lost unity of Christians”. Although critics of the document emphasized more than once: the words should be added to the text saying that unity, as the Holy Fathers wrote, is possible only through the repentance of heretics. The key paragraphs about participation in the World Council of Churches also remained unchanged. It is still, and not a dubious organization where the Orthodox episcopate is dominated by gay Protestant bishops.

Ecumenism is a movement for the unity of Christian churches. Ecumenists believe that the once united church has been divided into branches and now needs to be united. According to them, every Christian denomination carries the light of truth. Indirectly, the heresy of ecumenism, not having such a word in everyday life, was condemned by the apostles. So, the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to Titus instructed: "A heretic, after the first and second admonition, turn away." And the 45th canon of the holy apostles speaks of the excommunication of a bishop if he prays together with heretics, and of defrocking if he allows heretics to act as servants of the Church. “We have torn the Latins away from us for no other reason than that they are heretics. Therefore, it is absolutely wrong to unite with them,” wrote St. Mark of Ephesus in the 15th century. And the modern Holy Fathers, in whose vocabulary the term “ecumenism” was already present, speak of it this way. “Ecumenism is the general name for all types of pseudo-Christianity and all pseudo-churches Western Europe. It contains the essence of all kinds of humanism with papism at its head. And all this has a common gospel name: heresy, because throughout history different heresies were not considered important or distorted individual features of Christ, ”said Justin (Popovich), a Serbian saint of the 20th century.

What is the bottom line? The decisions of the Council contradict the Tradition and tradition of the Church and declare the heresy of ecumenism against which the Holy Fathers fought. The Chairman of the Council, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, according to the canons, is no longer a patriarch himself. This was pointed out before the beginning of the Council by the Svyatogorsk elder Gabriel of Kareisky, one of the most authoritative Athosites of our time. “Our patriarch, according to the rules of the holy apostles, has already been excommunicated and defrocked, since he twice invited the pope to the patronal feast, led him into the temple, allowed him to say the prayer “Our Father ...” and bless the people ... Potentially, he has already been excommunicated and deposed, and the Council he convenes is illegitimate," - . At the same time, the Council itself, which was attended by four local churches (including the largest in terms of the number of flocks - the Russian Orthodox Church), continues to call itself Pan-Orthodox and imposes its decisions on those who disagree.

The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church will express its attitude towards the decisions of the Crete meeting already at the next meeting. RIA Novosti was told about this by Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, Deputy Chairman Fr. However, the Orthodox world does not need a meeting of the Synod to understand that the decisions of the meeting in Crete are not valid and cannot be accepted, despite all the cunning of the ecumenists of Constantinople.